fusil 'a double ancre, can. 1740-50

[alex e.]

I finished this a bit ago. I have mixed feelings on it

European Walnut stock
46" o/r barrel by Larry Horrigan,.62"
A TOW TULLE lock,cleaned up and engraved by Ron Luckenbill
Standard rococo style trim from TOW
Low carbon steel "White Lighting" vent liner by Chambers.
Stained with a diluted LMF  stain,Formby's low gloss tung oil finish,and a few coats brix wax..
I will let it age naturally by reenactment use and sleeping with it on cold,damp ground,plus the occasional rain and thunderstorm.. After one season it will look much different.

My peaves about it are:
Not enough pied de voche on the underside of the buttstock.. not wrong,but I'd liked more.
I should have but one more rr pipe inin. It works but looks tad far apart for my eye. And to be PC

The European Walnut stock, while highly figured, is a lower grade piece of wood. By rights this piece should have a double molding at barrel and rr channel. When I started carving the beavertails and lock panels it was doing "stuff " I wasn't comfortable with. Knowing my limits and when to say when I decided to let them be.
The wood\bark inclusion at the beavertails did not help my cause either.
And my lock panels are just a tad too thick for my own taste. And this type of gun.
Don't get me wrong, I like it. But I tend to be my own worst critic






russian image host

[Mike Brooks]

I like it. I agree with some of your own critique, but I think you're a little hard on yourself. I think the shape is about right for a 1740 gun.  I think I would have went with the forestock moldings anyway. I have found a bottoming file (like  some folks might use to smooth out the inside of a lock mortise or under a sideplate etc...) works well to straighten out the lumpiness along   those long moldings.
 These following  ideas are just how I might have done things a bit different. These are neither right or wrong but just  "me". I'd have made a shorter oct. section on the barrel before it faded to rnd. and had the barrel made around 53" or so.
 I'll be building one of these with a 50" barrel maybe late this winter, I hope it turns out as well as yours.

[alex e.]

Thanks Mike,I appreciate your thoughts
As to length of the barrel. I needed a short barrelled fusil for reenactmens.
46"/3-1/2 pied seemed right for me. My one original St Etienne barrel is that long. But the profile mimics my two TULLE barrels



The wood was tearing and coming out in chunks.  And yes my tools were sharp
It seams alot of these guns just terminated to round without a formal transition.
Alot of the ones in Kevin's book do the same.
It's seems the FDC barrels as a rule definitely had shorter octagon sections.. I think it was an economy/ feature on those guns. I have noticed on some that the octagon section seems to end at the entry pipe. Not necessary a rule. Just what I noticed on some pieces
Thanks again

[Mike Brooks]

My original French trade gun barrel is oct fading to rnd. the transition seems to be at 10". I thought the oct section was shorter....memory isn't what it used to be. It is also 47" long, never could decide if it was shortened or not, lug spacing is about right. The barrel in the gun I'll be building is an exact copy of my original barrel and is in a black walnut stock that is curly/burly in the buttstock and has excellent grain in the wrist. The forestock is straight grained and will hopefully carve well!
 Is that an Oregon piece of English walnut? Some of those can be miserable to carve and somewhat soft. On the other hand I built a fowling gun earlier this year that had a blond English walnut stock with lots of curl that was hard and carved really well.

[alex e.]

It came from Ron Scott. . So it could be from Oregon. It was one of the lesser grades of wood he had for sale awhile back.. I wish I'd bought more at the time

[JNG3]

Alex E, to my untrained eye it looks fine.  I would be proud of it if I had built it. I do have a couple questions for you though. How many coats of tung oil and did you steel wool between coats? Also,  I assume there is no 'treatment' to the lock or barrel. Just files, stones and emery cloth. At what grit did you stop for both the lock and barrel? Not criticisms, trying to educate myself. I'm in the middle of a similar project as yours.

[Mike Brooks]

It came from Ron Scott. . So it could be from Oregon. It was one of the lesser grades of wood he had for sale awhile back.. I wish I'd bought more at the time

Probably from the same batch I got from Ron. Lucky for me mine carved well. Well anyway, it's a good gun. The one I want to build I hope to keep for myself as well. I have built these for other people and always wanted one, now's my chance!

[alex e.]

Alex E, to my untrained eye it looks fine.  I would be proud of it if I had built it. I do have a couple questions for you though. How many coats of tung oil and did you steel wool between coats? Also,  I assume there is no 'treatment' to the lock or barrel. Just files, stones and emery cloth. At what grit did you stop for both the lock and barrel? Not criticisms, trying to educate myself. I'm in the middle of a similar project as yours.

Nothing too crazy. Draw filed,sand down to 220 green Scotch Brite pad, Only treatment on metal was I used some BC brass black on the brass parts to bring out the engraving.. Compares to some originals I've seen,this is far better finished..
Thanks!

[Mike Brooks]

Did you ever find any reference as to what's up with the anchor on these? Were they intended for the French Marine service?

[alex e.]

Did you ever find any reference as to what's up with the anchor on these? Were they intended for the French Marine service?

Everything that left France to Noth America/ Canada was administered by the department of the Marine (Navy)
A civilian arm was not generally issued to troops. A fusil  de chasse is an exception, although it is not a civilian arm. Think sporterized military arm. It has more military features in it's hardware as opposed to civilian arms.
The anchor markings were an official marking of sorts.
As to the differences in anchor markings (large,small.double) that's still unclear. It could possibly be a marking specific to naval Port of origin when leaving France. On most pieces the engraving of the anchor seems to have been done by a different or lesser hand.

[Mike Brooks]

Did you ever find any reference as to what's up with the anchor on these? Were they intended for the French Marine service?

Everything that left France to Noth America/ Canada was administered by the department of the Marine (Navy)
A civilian arm was not generally issued to troops. A fusil  de chasse is an exception, although it is not a civilian arm. Think sporterized military arm. It has more military features in it's hardware as opposed to civilian arms.
The anchor markings were an official marking of sorts.
As to the differences in anchor markings (large,small.double) that's still unclear. It could possibly be a marking specific to naval Port of origin when leaving France. On most pieces the engraving of the anchor seems to have been done by a different or lesser hand.

Kevin Gladyzs never made that completely clear in his book...or I missed it. Your explanation makes sense.

[Bbell]

I really like your gun Alex. I love the looks and lines of those guns. I am really thinking hard about ordering tracks Fusil de Chasse with a 16ga 44” barrel.  Not sure if I have the time to dedicate to it. I haven’t done a full kit before. Might get the Kibler colonial rifle but just love the fusils. I have seen some of your other posts searching but none of the pics are there. Would love to see some more of the past fusils you have done. Thanks for sharing.

Brandon

[Daryl]

I like that gun - love the wood - that's a gun I would like to shoot.

This is a much later gun (about 100yrs.) , but does show a quicker transition to round from Octagonal.